This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Communism + National Socialism = Jared Loughner

WTF does that even mean

"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

Re: Communism + National Socialism = Jared Loughner

quite an ironic statement from someone with hunter s thompson in his signature. i'm guessing you don't actually read any of thompson's work, you just found the quote with a google search.

What I was saying is it's lazy to compare everyone to Nazis. Could have been worded better, none of the parties platforms line up is what I'm getting at. That's really my fault for using facism interchangeably.

Last edited by Sean_H; 01-13-11 at 03:03 PM.

"Myths and legends die hard in America. We love them for the extra dimension they provide, the illusion of near-infinite possibility to erase the narrow confines of most men's reality. Weird heroes and mould-breaking champions exist as living proof to those who need it that the tyranny of 'the rat race' is not yet final." - Hunter S. Thompson

Re: Communism + National Socialism = Jared Loughner

I think he means that it might work on paper but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When you put imperfect people in charge of a perfect system, everything changes and the system is no longer perfect.

The problem is the same with any pure system. Pure laissez faire capitalism doesn't happen for the same reasons.

"Myths and legends die hard in America. We love them for the extra dimension they provide, the illusion of near-infinite possibility to erase the narrow confines of most men's reality. Weird heroes and mould-breaking champions exist as living proof to those who need it that the tyranny of 'the rat race' is not yet final." - Hunter S. Thompson

Re: Communism + National Socialism = Jared Loughner

Originally Posted by upsideguy

Please feel free to enlighten us with some facts as you set forth nothing but personal opinion. Your assertion is contrary to generally accepted political science. Though I would agree their are many that simply suggest that nazism was a incoherent political philosophy that does not fit into a left/right paradigm. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but a cross reference would be helpful.

Socialism and its variants like Syndicalism are identified as being left-wing ideologies. Nazism arose from socialism and syndicalism and retained many of those ideals. People who identify Nazism as being a Far Right ideology are making the error of emphasizing the nationalist and racialist aspects of the philosophy.

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Fun Fact: This is completely false.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." - Marx, Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists

Where did he say "vanguard party" in there? The idea of the vanguard party espoused by Lenin is completely different from what is being expressed here. Lenin envisioned the vanguard party as taking control of the state on behalf of the proletariat as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx definitely did not espouse such an idea.

"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"- Khalil Gibran

In fantasy-land, they are something else entirely, maybe. But I'm not interested in fantasy land at the moment. And if I am, it better include hot chics and sniper rifles, maybe combined

You're also glossing over the fact that when some ideas are implemented in reality, they end up not producing what they hypothetically were supposed to. Reality has that effect on ideas. In the great global hypothesis of communism, anyone can see what the results of the experiment were, and that the hypothesis was bunk.

Such was, and still apparently is, the danger of socialism and communism rhetoric. Now, if I were a potential dictator with a power base, seeking to control an entire state, would I consider using a tool that "appears" to give power to the majority, but actually gives it all to me? I have a cunning plan.

That;s really the depressing and ironic tragedy of communism/socialism isn't it? You have these people that are championing it in the name of individual power and the worker, etc., and you know the rhetoric is designed to appeal to that, but you also know that in reality, it will mean some of the worst political and economic conditions of the last century, if implemented. It's like seeing someone lapping up poison that tastes like cotton candy, it's just awful.

In fantasy-land, they are something else entirely, maybe. But I'm not interested in fantasy land at the moment. And if I am, it better include hot chics and sniper rifles, maybe combined

You're also glossing over the fact that when some ideas are implemented in reality, they end up not producing what they hypothetically were supposed to. Reality has that effect on ideas. In the great global hypothesis of communism, anyone can see what the results of the experiment were, and that the hypothesis was bunk.

Such was, and still apparently is, the danger of socialism and communism rhetoric. Now, if I were a potential dictator with a power base, seeking to control an entire state, would I consider using a tool that "appears" to give power to the majority, but actually gives it all to me? I have a cunning plan.

That;s really the depressing and ironic tragedy of communism/socialism isn't it? You have these people that are championing it in the name of individual power and the worker, etc., and you know the rhetoric is designed to appeal to that, but you also know that in reality, it will mean some of the worst political and economic conditions of the last century, if implemented. It's like seeing someone lapping up poison that tastes like cotton candy, it's just awful.

Sorry, but your notion that reality impugnes the theory is quite absurd. If people applied that sort of thinking to every political theory we would condemn the very idea of democracy given the less-than-respectable actions of its earlier proponents.

"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"- Khalil Gibran

Re: Communism + National Socialism = Jared Loughner

Where did he say "vanguard party" in there? The idea of the vanguard party espoused by Lenin is completely different from what is being expressed here. Lenin envisioned the vanguard party as taking control of the state on behalf of the proletariat as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx definitely did not espouse such an idea.

Lol so because he didn't say the exact words or coin a phrase that means that Lenin was the originator. And no, Lenin did not envision that. You are again wrong.

"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."